Why ‘Moderate Islam’ is an Oxymoron

At a time when terrorism committed in the name of Islam is rampant, we are continuously being assured—especially by three major institutions that play a dominant role in forming the Western mindset, namely, mainstream media, academia, and government—that the sort of Islam embraced by “radicals,” “jihadis,” and so forth, has nothing to do with “real” Islam.

“True” Islam, so the narrative goes, is intrinsically free of anything “bad.” It’s the nut-jobs who hijack it for their own agenda that are to blame.

More specifically, we are told that there exists a “moderate” Islam and an “extremist” Islam—the former good and true, embraced by a Muslim majority, the latter a perverse sacrilege practiced by an exploitative minority.

But what do these dual adjectives—“moderate” and “extremist”—ultimately mean in the context of Islam? Are they both equal and viable alternatives insofar as to how Islam is understood? Are they both theologically legitimate? This last question is particularly important, since Islam is first and foremost a religious way of life centered around the words of a deity (Allah) and his prophet (Muhammad)—the significance of which is admittedly unappreciated by secular societies.

Both terms—“moderate” and “extremist”—have to do with degree, or less mathematically, zeal: how much, or to what extent, a thing is practiced or implemented. As Webster’s puts it, “moderate” means “observing reasonable limits”; “extremist” means “going to great or exaggerated lengths.”

It’s a question, then, of doing either too much or too little.

The problem, however, is that mainstream Islam offers a crystal-clear way of life, based on the teachings of the Koran and Hadith—the former, containing what purport to be the sacred words of Allah, the latter, the example (or sunna, hence “Sunnis”) of his prophet, also known as the most “perfect man” (al-insan al-kamil). Indeed, based on these two primary sources and according to normative Islamic teaching, all human actions fall into five categories: forbidden actions, discouraged actions, neutral actions recommended actions, and obligatory actions.

In this context, how does a believer go about “moderating” what the deity and his spokesman have commanded? One can either try to observe Islam’s commandments or one can ignore them: any more or less is not Islam—a word which means “submit” (to the laws, or sharia, of Allah).

The real question, then, is what do Allah and his prophet command Muslims (“they who submit”) to do? Are radicals “exaggerating” their orders? Or are moderate Muslims simply “observing reasonable limits”—a euphemism for negligence?—when it comes to fulfilling their commandments?

In our highly secularized era, where we are told that religious truths are flexible or simply non-existent, and that any and all interpretations and exegeses are valid, the all-important question of “What does Islam command?” loses all relevance.

Hence why the modern West is incapable of understanding Islam.

Indeed, only recently, a Kenyan mosque leader said that the Westgate massacre, where Islamic gunmen slaughtered some 67 people, “was justified. As per the Koran, as per the religion of Islam, Westgate was 100 percent justified.” Then he said: “Radical Islam is a creation of people who do not believe in Islam. We don’t have radical Islam, we don’t have moderates, we don’t have extremists. Islam is one religion following the Koran and the Sunna” [emphasis added].

Note his point that “Radical Islam is a creation of people who do not believe in Islam,” a clear reference to the West which coined the phrase “radical Islam.” Ironically, the secular West, which relegates religious truths to the realm of “personal experience,” feels qualified to decide what is and is not “radical” about Islam.

Consider one example: Allah commands Muslims to “Fight those among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth [i.e., Islam], until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” [Koran 9:29].

How can one interpret this verse to mean anything other than what it plainly says? Wherein lies the ambiguity, the room for interpretation? Of course there are other teachings and allusions in the Koran that by necessity lend themselves over to the fine arts of interpretation, or ijtihad. But surely the commands of Koran 9:29 are completely straightforward?

In fact, Muhammad’s 7th century followers literally acted on this and similar verses (e.g., 9:5), launching the first Muslim conquests, which saw the subjugation of millions of Christians, Jews, and others, and the creation of the “Muslim world.” Such jihadi expansion continued until Islam was beaten on the battlefield by a resurgent West some two or three centuries ago.

Western scholarly works, before the age of relativism and political correctness set in, did not equivocate the meaning of jihad. Thus the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated. Islamic law expert and U.S. professor Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, wrote that “jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community.”

In short, how can a sincere Muslim—by definition, one who has submitted to the teachings of Allah—“moderate” verses like 9:29? How can he “observe reasonable limits” vis-à-vis these plain commands to combat and subjugate non-Muslims?

Must Muslims not, at the very least, admit that such teachings are true and should be striven for—even if they do not personally engage in the jihad, at least not directly (but they are encouraged to support it indirectly, including monetarily or through propaganda)?

Are all such Muslims being “extreme” in light of the commands of Koran 9:29—which specifically calls for the taking of money from Christians and Jews—or are they simply upholding the unambiguous teachings of Islam?

One may argue that, if Muslims are to take Koran 9:29 literally, why are Muslim nations the world over not declaring an all-out jihad on all non-Muslim nations, including America? The ultimate reason, of course, is that they simply can’t; they do not have the capability to uphold that verse (and Islamic teaching allows Muslims to postpone their obligations until circumstances are more opportune).

A quick survey of history before the meteoric rise of Western military might put Islam in check makes this especially clear.

Bottom line: If Islam teaches X and a Muslim upholds X—how is he being “extreme”? Seems more logical to say that it is Islam itself that is being “extreme.” Similarly, if a self-professed Muslim does not uphold Islamic teachings—including prayer, fasting, paying zakat, etc.—how is he being a “moderate”? Seems more logical to say that he is not much of a Muslim at all—that is, he is not submitting to Allah, the very definition of “Muslim.”

It’s time to acknowledge that dichotomized notions like “moderate” and “extreme” are culturally induced and loaded standards of the modern, secular West—hardly applicable to the teachings of Islam—and not universal absolutes recognized by all mankind.

Subscribe and Get Connected

Enter your email to subscribe for free updates and get the latest content to your email.

Thank you, Raymond.
You have a fabulous ability to tell the truth and the truth is supported by the Quran, the Hadith, and the historical record. Education, from honest scholars, is the only logical way to turn the tables on the con job that been perpetrated on all of us for YEARS.
God bless you from all of us.

Tanks-a-lot

When a moron says something about “extremist Christians”, ask them why they are afraid of Cistercian Monks.

Tanks-a-lot

“One may argue that, if Muslims are to take Koran 9:29 literally, why are Muslim nations the world over not declaring an all-out jihad on all non-Muslim nations, including America? The ultimate reason, of course, is that they simply can’t; they do not have the capability to uphold that verse (and Islamic teaching allows Muslims to postpone their obligations until circumstances are more opportune).”

Winston Churchill – The Story of the Malakand Field Force

It is, thank heaven, difficult if not impossible for the modern European to fully appreciate the force which fanaticism exercises among an ignorant, warlike and Oriental population. Several generations have elapsed since the nations of the West have drawn the sword in religious controversy, and the evil memories of the gloomy past have soon faded in the strong, clear light of Rationalism and human sympathy. Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside. The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis–as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder and the joy of fighting. Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace (Christianity) is usually the better armed.

Larry

NO! NO!NO!

Unless you have studied Parasites, you will not be able to understand what is going on in the world.

(1) Purchase PARASITE REX by Carl Zimmer.

(2) When you understand the nature of a parasite, then you will be able to
use this information to recognize HUMAN PARASITES & how they operate.

THE PARASITIC SACCULINA THAT BENDS ITS HOST TO ITS OWN WILL

Falling into the category of “you can’t make this up,” is the parasitic barnacle Sacculina. Shedding its hard shell and injecting itself into the body of a host crab, Sacculina becomes its puppet master, preventing the crab from molting, growing, regenerating, digesting and reproducing. Instead, the reprogrammed crab directs all of its energy to nourishing the Sacculina and
caring for the parasite’s offspring.

Surprisingly, some are thinking of purposely introducing Sacculina into non-native habitats. Perhaps not as crazy as it sounds, scientists are
currently weighing whether Sacculina, as a parasitic castrator, could be used
to benefit certain marine ecosystems.

LIFE CYCLE

In its larval stage, the female of the species has a hard outer shell, like
other barnacle larvae. When she finds her preferred host, the green crab Carcinus maenas, she walks along its body until she locates a joint in the
host’s shell. There, Sacculina, unlike other barnacles, sheds her outer shell
and injects herself into the crab.

Once inside, from her now slug-like form she develops a root system of
tendrils; these filaments extend throughout the crab’s abdomen, taking over its intestine, diverticulae and even surrounding the stomach, allowing Sacculina to suck nourishment from the crab. In addition, other tendrils envelope the crab’s thoracic ganglion (a nerve center), and follow the crab’s nervous system down through its legs and up to and surrounding the cerebral ganglion (the crab equivalent of a brain).

After a few weeks, she develops a sac-like reproductive unit that grows out
from the crab’s abdomen near its rear where the crab would otherwise keep its own eggs. There, many tiny male Sacculina in larval form (the males never reach adult maturity) enter the female’s external sac and fertilize her eggs, of
which she can make hundreds every day.

After about 6 weeks, the eggs develop into larvae and the reproductive cycle
continues. Mature Sacculina can live as long as their hosts, and, therefore,
continue to breed for at least one or two years.

PUPPET MASTER

More than just getting a free ride, Sacculina takes total control of its
host crab. First, the tendrils that have attached to the crab’s nerves emit
substances that rework the crab’s endocrine system. Via this mechanism,
Sacculina causes the crab’s body to absorb its own Y-organ (the gland that
directs the crab to molt or grow), as well as commanding the crab’s androgenic gland (which controls sex differentiation) to degenerate.

With Sacculina in the driver’s seat, not only is the crab unable to molt,
grow or regenerate lost limbs, it is also now infertile. To add insult to
injury, when Sacculina inhabits a male crab, the endocrine changes wrought by Sacculina feminize him, so that he now resembles (and acts like) a female crab – to the point that he will even do a female mating dance!

Under complete alien control, the infected host of either sex will begin to
care for the parasite’s eggs (that rest on the crab’s abdomen where its own
eggs would be). When the time is right, the crab acts out its own reproductive
cycle by climbing to a high rock and tending to the egg pouch. When the
hundreds of eggs are ready to hatch, the crab bobs up and down in the water to release them; he/she then stirs the floating eggs with his/her claw to set them on their way to new hosts, where this cruel cycle will continue.

NATIVE HABITATS & INVASIVE SPECIES

Sacculina’s territory mimics that of its primary host, the green crab, which
is native to the Eastern Atlantic Ocean from Europe through North Africa.

The green crab, however, has become an invasive species, spreading
throughout the Atlantic, and even to the Eastern Pacific along the shores of California and Washington. Sacculina has, apparently, not necessarily followed it to all of these new habitats.

As an invasive species, the predatory green crab has wreaked havoc on fisheries on both coasts of the U.S., devouring oysters, mussels and other crabs. To rid themselves of this voracious eating machine, some have suggested introducing Sacculina to disrupt the green crab’s reproductive cycle.

Others are concerned that Sacculina will develop a taste for a variety of
crab species, including the desirable and profitable natives fishermen and
ecologists are trying to protect; as such, several studies have been done to
weigh the efficacy of introducing Sacculina to these overrun fisheries.

Those in favor of introduction of the parasite point to a 1997 Australian experiment where different species of crab were exposed to Sacculina, but only the invasive green crabs were infested by the parasite.

Those against look to a 2000 study where it was determined that “Sacculina carcini [would] infest at least two genera of crabs from a broad geographic distribution.” This conclusion was supported by a 2003 experiment that found that native species suffered infestation rates in the range of 33% to 53%.

Despite these concerning statistics, since the green crab continues to
devastate fisheries, as late as 2010 researchers at Duke University were planning new studies to determine if the benefits of introducing the parasite outweigh the costs.

THE DEVIL YOU KNOW

Biological control of invasive species, by introducing their natural enemies
into the mix, has a long, and some would say successful, history. People
frequently use ladybugs and parasitic wasps to keep undesirable aphids in
control, while many also employ lacewings and predatory mites to wreak havoc on destructive mealybugs. Yet, introducing a new species to an ecosystem can often create unintended consequences.

For example, in Hawaii, although the introduction of natural enemies to fight invasive species has had an estimated benefit of saving “tens of millions of dollars and reduced pesticide use by many tons annually,” there have been some added costs. For example, the mongoose, introduced to prey on unwanted rat populations, also aggressively hunted, and had a devastating effect on a number of native bird species.

So, this all begs the question: is it better to introduce a powerful,
mind-controlling devil to control the green crab (and maybe ruin the population we are trying to protect) or just stick with the devil we know?

Tanks-a-lot

flagged douchebag

Larry

IF YOU MISS THIS, THEN YOU ARE PEEING AGAINST THE WIND:

MOHAMMED’S MOTHER WAS JEWISH!

THIS MAKES HIM A JEW

HE BASED HIS QURAN ON THE TORAH/TALMUD

ISLAM: A SECT OF TALMUDIC JUDAISM?

The Mother of Mohammed, Amina was of Jewish birth. Von Hammer.

“Mohammed, who was the only son of Abdallah, a Pagan, and Amina, a Jewess, and was descended from the noble but impoverished family of Hashim, of the priestly tribe of Koreish, who were the chiefs and keepers of the national sanctuary of the Kaaba, and pretended to trace their origin to Ismael, the son of Abraham and Hagar, was
born at Mecca, August 20, A.D. 570 …’

At that period, there were many “Jews’ in that area. Again from The History Of
The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, volume 5, page 202:

“Seven hundred years before the death of Mahomet the Jews were settled in
Arabia; and a far greater multitude was expelled from the Holy Land in the wars of Titus and Hadrian. The industrious exiles aspired to liberty and power: they erected synagogues in the cities, and castles in the wilderness; and their Gentile converts were confounded with the children of Israel [Jews] …”

Waves of Israelites to Arabia bringing Judaism in various stages of development

The traditional view of Arabian history centers on Yemen. It is assumed that a fairly developed civilization grew in the south of the Arabian Peninsula. For several hundred years it grew rich by exporting gold, frankincense and myrrh to the Roman Empire; as well as controlling the overland routes to India and the East. The first
collapse of the Marib dam around 450 CE; the decline of the use of frankincense
due to the Christianization of Rome; and the Rome success bypassing the desert by using a sea route led to the collapse of southern Arabian society. This in turn led to
waves of immigration from the South to North, from the city to the desert.

Dr. Günter Lüling proposes an alternative paradigm.[1] He proposes a “more historical picture of Central Arabia, inundated throughout a millennium by heretical Israelites”. He envisions waves of Israelite refugees headed, North to South, to Arabia bringing with them Judaism in various stages of development. Linguistic and literary-historical research in the Qur’an tends to support the notion of a more northerly origin for linguistic development of Arabic.[2] Here is a brief summary of three of these waves of Judaic immigration: Herodian, Sadducean and Zealot (explained in more detail elsewhere).[3]

During the time of Ptolemy, the native population of Cush originally inhabited both sides of the Red Sea: on the east, southern and eastern Arabia; and on the west, Abyssinia (Ethiopia-Eritrea). During the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (r 181–145 BCE), the Jewish High Priest Onias IV built a Jewish Temple in Heliopolis, Egypt and also one in Mecca, Arabia. He did this to fulfill his understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah 19:19, “In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord (Heliopolis) in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border (Mecca) thereof to the Lord.” The border of Ptolemy’s empire was in Arabia.

The first wave of immigrants came with the success of the Maccabean, later Herodian, Judeo-Arab kingdom. Romanized Arabs (and Jews) from the trans-Jordan
began migrating southward. The Tobiads which briefly had controlled Jerusalem, extended their power southward from Petra and established the “Tubba” dynasty of kings of Himyar. Yathrib was settled during this period.

The second wave of immigrants came before the destruction of the Temple, when refugees fleeing the war, as well as the Sadducean leadership, fled to Arabia. Khaibar was established as a city of Sadducean Cohen-Priests at this time.

The third wave of immigrants were mostly refugees and soldiers from Bar Kochba’s revolt – fighters trained in the art of war and zealously nationalistic – sought refugee in Arabia.

This last wave of immigrants included people who are known in Islamic literature as the Aus and the Khazraj. Around 300 CE, they were forced out of Syria by the rising strength of Christian Rome, and the adoption of the Ghassan leader, Harith I, of Christianity. At first the Aus and Khazraj lived on the outskirts of Yathrib. According to Islamic sources, the Khazraj, headed by Malik ibn Ajlan, sought and obtained military assistance from the Bani Ghasaan; and having enticed the principal chiefs of Yathrib into an enclosed tent, massacred them.[4] Then the citizens of Yathrib, beguiled into security by a treacherous peace, attended a feast given by their unprincipled foes; and there a second butchery took place, in which they lost the whole of their
leaders.[5]

References

1.”A new Paradigm for the Rise of Islam and its
Consequences for a New Paradigm of the History of Israel” by Dr.
Günter Lüling; Originally appeared in The Journal of Higher Criticism Nr.
7/1, Spring 2000, pp. 23-53.

2.Hagarism, Crone and Cook

3.See the authors essays “The Prophet Muhammed as a
descendant of Onias III” and “From Bar Kochba to the Prophet
Muhammed”

Shamsuddin Ibn Qayyim al Jawziya who is one of the only
scholars that the Wahabis do not reject and who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya. Let us quote what he writes in his Bada’i al-Fuwa’id, page 129:

“Ibn ‘Aqeel, and many of our scholars, and our Shaykh [Ibn
Taymiyya] have ruled that masturbation is makruh (disliked), and never explicitly said he that it was haram”.

Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 129

He then presents his own discussion on the conditions that
make masturbation halaal:

“If a man is torn between continued desire or releasing it,
and if this man does not have a wife or he has a slave-girl but he does not marry, then if a man is overwhelmed by desire, and he fears that he will suffer because of this (someone like a prisoner, or a traveller, or a pauper), then it
is permissible for him to masturbate, and Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) is explicit on this. Furthermore, it is narrated that the Companions of the Prophet (s) used to masturbate while they were on military expeditions or travelling”.

COMMENT:

The polytheists at the dawn of Islam must have been terrified by that scene:

(AN ARMY OF WANKERS)

an army of pious companions, their pants nice and short,
their beards stretching down to their wastes, their swords held high with one hand while they heartily masturbate with the other. If this was the type of scene going on, we might be able to understand why so many companions refused
to go on jihad. Would Dr. Salamah march off to battle with only an army of masturbators to protect him? Or was this tactic of masturbatory jihad supposed to be some sort of an offensive stratagem, to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy? Indeed, these companions were masters at the art of war!

We appeal for justice: who is promoting debauchery, the
Sunnis or the Shi’a? There are a lot of Ahkam surrounding travelling mentioned by the Prophet (s) and the Imams (as): the obligation to pray two rakaat for zuhr instead of four, or the obligation to break one’s fast. This Sunni ‘alim, who is one of the singularly most distinguished Sunni’ ulama and is adored by the Wahabis, has offered another hukm for travelling the permissibility of masturbating. And yet when a Shi’a says that a man is allowed to contract temporary marriage in order to satisfy his desires, Dr. Salamah passes a hukm of takfir. One is allowed to masturbate but not contract a temporary marriage? Is this not the peak of insanity?

(2) Second example of Sunni morality:

SUNNI ‘ULAMA LEGITIMISED THE USE OF DILDOS (FEMALE SEX TOYS)

After this ingenious fatwa, Ibn Qayyim then goes on to make
permissible the use of a dildoe by women. It is only logical; when the husbands leave to go masturbate and spread Islam by the sword, they need something to do with themselves. On the same page as quoted above, Ibn Qayyim writes:

“If a woman does not have a husband, and her lust becomes strong, then some of our scholars say: It is permissible for the woman to take an akranbij, which is a piece of leather worked until it becomes shaped like a
penis, and insert it in herself. She may also use a cucumber”.

COMMENT:

Now, according to Dr. Salamah’s logic, the Saudi government should therefore purchase a large number of such dildoes, and distribute them to old widows or otherwise unattractive women who cannot marry. Since anything
that is permissible, according to Dr. Salamah, requires stand sanction and support, than clearly a dildoe distribution office needs to be immediately established in the great Islamic state of Saudi Arabia.

Maybe this is another reason why ‘Umar the Khalifa never
went on jihad: somebody had to stay behind and organize the cucumber distribution.

(3) Third example of Sunni morality –

SUNNI ‘ULAMA HAVE RULED ON PERMISSIBILITY OF HAVING SEX WITH WATERMELONS

That was not a typographical error. Ibn Qayyim continues
this discussion, which exemplifies the morals espoused by Sunni Islam:

“If a man makes a hole in a watermelon, or a piece of dough, or a leather skin, or a statue, and has sex with it, then this is the same as what we have said about other types of masturbation [i.e., that it is halaal in the same circumstances given before, such as being on a journey]. In fact, it is easier than masturbating with one’s hand”.

COMMENT:

All the Muslims should certainly be grateful that Ibn Qayyim
has offered this advice on the easiest way to masturbate, and clearly Ibn Qayyim has done a lot of personal research on this issue. This is the ruling of the “saved sect”: Contracting temporary marriage with a woman is haram, but
contracting temporary marriage with a watermelon is halaal. In his defence, perhaps Ibn Qayyim only meant that it is allowed to marry a watermelon with the intent of divorcing it, for doing Mut’ah with a watermelon would clearly be an
act of fornication.

Let us remember the words of Dr. Salamah quoted at the
beginning of this book:

Mut’ah, on the other hand, is an open license for sexual
pleasure with as many women as one can financially afford. The women who engage in Mut’ah are hired women; thus, it can be performed with all women irrespective of their age, character, conduct or religion. It requires no witnesses, nor is there any obligation on the man’s part to provide food and
shelter to the woman.

Well, it seems that in the Nasibi logic having sex with as
many women as one can afford is utterly immoral, but having sex with as many watermelons as one can afford is not. Based on this, let us ask him some questions about the Ahkam related to having sex with watermelons: Are there any conditions as to the age of the watermelon? For example, is it allowed to perform a marriage with the intent to divorce with a newly grown watermelon, or must one wait until the watermelon is nine years old?

Must it be a pious watermelon, or is it permissible to contract a marriage with the intent to divorce with a watermelon that is known to “get around”?

May a pious brother share his watermelon with another pious brother, or would the second man’s marriage with the intent to divorce constitute an act of fornication unless the watermelon observes proper ‘iddah?

Are witnesses required in the marriage with the intent to
divorce of a watermelon? May other watermelons serve as witnesses in that marriage, since according to Sunni fiqh all marriages require witnesses?
Applying the Sunni principle of Qiyas (analogy), we can strongly argue that if it is allowed to marry (with intention of divorce) a watermelon, than certainly it is allowed for a watermelon to bear witness to another watermelon’s blessed
and chaste marriage.

What about oranges?

Really, we have to ask all reasonable Muslims: would you
rather follow ‘ulama that rule on the permissibility of having sex with fruits and vegetables, or follow the pious path of the Holy Imams (as), of whom Allah (swt) has said:

We intend, O Family of the Prophet, to remove from you all
impurity, and to give you a through purification.

Al-Qur’an, Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 33

Does somebody who spends his time thinking about whether or not it is permissible to have sex with watermelons really sound like somebody who has been removed of all impurity? Why is Ibn Qayyim even thinking about such things? What kind of personal life does such a person have that would lead him to debate such issues in his mind? What happened in Ibn Qayyim’s life that one day he woke up and said: “I really need to find out if its halaal to have sex with watermelons.” Is the type of clergymen who openly rules for the permissibility of having sex with watermelons (with conditions, of course, such as that one is on a journey) be the kind of person you would want to meet in a dark alley, much less do taqlid of?

(4)Fourth example of Sunni morality –

A SALAFI WOMAN CAN SUCKLE A SALAFI MAN WITH A BEARD

We read in Sahih Muslim Hadith Number 3426:

Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. ‘Amr came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said:
Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me
a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.

COMMENT:

This reference is especially for Dr Salamah who has accused the Shi’a of being filthy proponents of Mut’ah, what right do you have to attack us when have the above Fatwa of Ayesha allowing your women to suckle men with beards so as to make them mahram? How many pubescent Salafi men has your mother suckled so that they can enter your house? When your madhab allows your mothers / daughters to breast feed men with beards what gives you the right to
attack the practice of Mut’ah? If today any Nasibi tries to suggest that this practice no longer exists in their school and it was only Ayesha who had issued the fatwa then we shall present the thoughts of their Imam Ibn Tamiyah as
quoted by one of the revered scholars of Salafies Ibn Uthaimeen:

“Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymia (may Allah’s mercy be upon him)
chosed to explain in details and said that if the breast suckling by an adult was necessary and he suckled, then the prohibition (of marriage) is established.”

Fatawa Nur Ala Aldarb, Volume 10 page 204

Imam Ibn Hazm records:

ورضاع الكبير محرم ولو انه شيخ يحرم كما يحرم رضاع الصغير

“The breast suckling by an adult prohibits (marriage) even
if he is an old man just like it prohibits (marriage) in the case of suckling by a child”

Al-Muhala, Volume 10 page 17

Now compare this morality to the comments of a contemporary Salafi scholar from “Islamic Fatawa Regarding Women” compiled by Muhammed al-Musnad and translated by Jamal Zarabozo. In Chapter 19, Questions of a
Miscellaneous Nature under the sub heading Ruling Concerning Women Driving Automobiles’, Imam of the Salafi Nasibi Shaykh bin Baz stated:

There have been numerous questions concerning the ruling of women driving automobiles. The response is the following:

There is no doubt that such is not allowed. Women driving
leads to many evils and negative consequences. Included among these is her mixing with men without her being on her guard. It also leads to the evil sins due to which such an action is forbidden. The Pure Law forbids those acts that
lead to forbidden acts and considers those means to be forbidden also. Allah has ordered the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the women of the
believers to remain in their houses, to wear hijab and not to display their adornments to non-mahram males as that leads to promiscuity that overruns a society.

Now on the one side these moralistic Salafi have this kind
of fatawa prohibiting their women from (Allah forbid) driving a car as this may cause promiscuity, and on the other hand they deem it permissible for their women to suckle men with beards! Women driving ‘leads to many evils and negative consequences’, but if the same women were to remain at home suckling men with beards, that’s fine!

“If he had sexual intercourse with an animal that will not
make his hajj void”

(6) Sixth example of Sunni morality –

PEDOPHILIA, BESTIALITY & NECROPHILIA CAN BE PERFORMED WHILST ONE IS FASTING

In Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603:

“It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would ejaculate while he was fasting. Ahmed said: “What I see is that he can release semen without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has an “Ammah” whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible”.

Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603

Not to be hard done by, the Hanafi’s follow suit. In Fatawa
Qadhi Khan, Page 820, the learned Hanafi scholar Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan sets out those acts that do not invalidate one’s fast, and he includes:

“Sex with animals, dead people and masturbation, does not
invalidate one’s fast provided ejaculation does not occur”

Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820

COMMENT:

What can we say about such Fatwas of morality? Fasting in
Islam, is viewed as a means via which a believer purifies himself, via self-discipline, he dedicates that time to the remembrance of Allah (swt) and keeps aloof from sinful thoughts and acts. That is the theory, but the Hanbali and Hanafi madhab allows a man (whilst fasting) to have sex with kaffir women, animals, and dead people, the only proviso being that no ejaculation takes place! Ibn Hanbal was
however more considerate to his adherents allowing for a man to ejaculate whilst fasting, providing the deed is achieved via masturbation, and to this end he can do it himself, or seek the help of his wife or a small child! Is
this is not evidence that Ibn Hanbal was endorsing paedophilia? Would any decent man (Muslim or Non Muslim) find it appropriate to use a child for sexual stimulation? If we put together these type of fatwas one shudders to think of
the image of these great Salaf, entering the war whilst fasting, their buttocks exposed, having sex with melons at the ready. This image would have terrified the opposition!

Larry

UNLESS YOU HAVE OBEYED THE WARNING OF JESUS ABOUT THE JEWISH TALMUD, THEN YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED, AS MOST OF CHRISTENDOM HAS BEEN FOR THE PAST 2000 YEARS:

“Beware the leaven of the Pharisees…………………….” Matthew 16:6

The LEAVEN was the Oral Tradition aka The Traditions of the Elders (Matthew 15).
This was translated into English in or around 1937! They knew by then that they had infected the whole of Christendom with their LEAVEN.

The ATONEMENT is PRIESTCRAFT!

The Prophets preached OBEDIENCE!

The MASS is PRIESTCRAFT!

Moloch is PRIESTCRAFT! (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a)

Pedophilia is PRIESTCRAFT!

Talmudic Judaism – Romanism – Mohammedanism is PRIESTCRAFT!

ALL 3 ARE INFECTED WITH PEDOPHILIA!

BY WAY OF DECEPTION JESUS WAS OFFERED AS A SACRIFICE TO MOLOCH, BY THE JEWS:

The Gospel of John 11:47-57

47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council. They asked, “What are we doing? This man is performing a lot of miracles. 48 If we let him continue what he’s doing, everyone will believe in him. Then the Romans will take away our position and our nation.”

49 One of them, Caiaphas, who was chief priest that year, told them, “You people don’t know anything. 50 You haven’t even considered this: It is better for one man to die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.”

THE LIE

51 Caiaphas didn’t say this on his own. As chief priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation. 52 He prophesied that Jesus wouldn’t die merely for this nation, but that Jesus would die to bring God’s scattered children together and make them one.

53 From that day on, the Jewish council planned to kill Jesus. 54 So
Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews. Instead, he left Bethany and went to the countryside near the desert, to a city called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples.

55 The Jewish Passover was near.
Many people came from the countryside to Jerusalem to purify themselves before the Passover. 56 As they stood in the temple courtyard, they looked for Jesus and asked each other, “Do you think that he’ll avoid coming to the festival?” 57 (The chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that whoever knew where Jesus was should tell them so that they could arrest him.)

IN THE BABYLONIAN JEWISH TALMUD WE READ:

MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a

Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437

Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages,
Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:

GEMARA. R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men ... that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death ... And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one

that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will ... cut him off.]

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b

Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439

Rabbi Dr. Freedman, one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin,
clarifies the passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use “seed” to denote living children, in the same sense as the Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes.
In this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:

3. Is ‘thou shalt not cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally
pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or
carried, or does it apply to all?

Rabbi Dr. Freedman

Other footnotes within the same context clarify the fine point of distinction
being drawn in the Mishnah and subsequent debates among the sages:

5. Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (I)
formal delivery to the priests, and (2) causing the seed to pass through the
fire.

Rabbi Dr. Freedman (2)

5. As two separate offences, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not
idolatry. The differences [sic] is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused
his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.

Rabbi Dr. Freedman (3)

Following the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 64a and 64b contain a rousing debate between
the Sages concerning:

* the circumstances under which worshipping an idol is idolatry,

* which idols may be worshipped without indulging in idolatry,

* which parts of child sacrifice in what combination are punishable, and

Please note in advance that the purpose of the following article, originally published in a Catholic journal, is not to "convert" Jews to Christianity, or Christians to Judaism -- nor to "prove" or "disprove" the validity of the Christian faith by virtue of its roots in the Judaic -- but simply to correct the commonly held beliefs, among Christians and Jews alike, about the role of the Jewish people in the crucifixion of the man later to be called "Jesus," as documented in both Jewish and Christian Scripture. Over the past four years, since its publication, "To Die for the People" has offended Christians and Jews alike: Christians because it seeks to disprove one of their most cherished popular beliefs -- that is, that the Jews called for the death of "Jesus" out of malice and rejection of his "divinity" -- and Jews because the article, written by a Jew from a Jewish perspective, even takes the matter of "Jesus" seriously at all.]

mollysdad

Bottom line: If Islam teaches X and a Muslim upholds X—how is he being “extreme”? Seems more logical to say that it is Islam itself that is being “extreme.”
It is not that Islam is extreme. The point is that Islam is false, seditious, blasphemous and idolatrous, and as Robert Spencer has demonstrated, it is impossible to say with certainty that Muhammad existed and said and did the things ascribed to him. Those who, as textbook Muslims, are – in view of its political claims – worthy of death.

http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/ Francis W. Porretto

This case has been made innumerable times, yet no one beyond the already enlightened will listen. It’s worth some thought as to why that should be.
My explanation is fear: fear that we’ll wake from our fantasies of a moderate, freedom-compatible Islam to discover a genuine boogeyman, real, solid, and holding a sword, before us and poised to strike.

dapreach.1@comcast.net

Good point, FWP. It’s called ‘living in denial’, otherwise known as wearing rose-colored glasses. And the real truth is, it’s going to get us all killed!

SNLDallas

Yes, it is true that Islam is a religion and way of living. Like every religion it has some do’s and dont’s. How someone follow the teaching of Islam is totally different. There is not extremism or moderation. Islam teaches X and Muslims follows X but few Muslims don’t want to follow X with WXY they pay attention only on X don’t bother that in what condition they should follow X. Majority of Muslims follow X with VWXYZ. Please watch MTA.TV 24/7 or go to http://www.alislam.org to get the true and beautiful teaching of Islam

JohnJ

It concerns me that a possible Dark age is reappearing in the possible parasitic conquest of the West by Islam. If madrassahs form in European prisons as seems to be happening, perhps the film Alien could be seen as a symbolic harbinger of things to come. In the present state of global political correctness, the West seems powerless to stop it.

Islamic teaching is moderate. It’s extremist who violate it. If we misquote verses or put them out of context as done in this article, we can’t see beauty of true islam.

Robert Werdine

Read Ibrahim’s other article. Interesting.

http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk IftikharA

O our Lord we ask you for the best in this world and for the best in the world after and save us from the hell fire.

Its imperative for every Muslim to keep a balance in the worldly achievements and in Practice of Islam. There are a lot many Muslims all over the world who are at the height of their professions and have excellent achievements in education, science, technology and more over they are practicing Muslims and fulfil all the fundamentals of deen. There is no restrictions on gaining scientific or other worldly knowledge and achievements for a Muslim but keeping a balance is most important.It is a fact that memorization and learning Quran in a correct way is an extra and vital quality.
IAhttp://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

Search

Raymond Ibrahim is a Middle East and Islam specialist and author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007). His writings have appeared in a variety of media, including the Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst, Middle East Quarterly, World Almanac of Islamism, and Chronicle of Higher Education; he has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, C-SPAN, PBS, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, NPR, Blaze TV, and CBN. Ibrahim regularly speaks publicly, briefs governmental agencies, provides expert testimony for Islam-related lawsuits, and testifies before Congress. He is a Shillman Fellow, David Horowitz Freedom Center; a CBN News contributor; a Media Fellow, Hoover Institution (2013); and a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow, Middle East Forum . Ibrahim’s dual-background -- born and raised in the U.S. by Coptic Egyptian parents born and raised in the Middle East -- has provided him with unique advantages, from equal fluency in English and Arabic, to an equal understanding of the Western and Middle Eastern mindsets, positioning him to explain the latter to the former.

The reproduction of any material or information originating on this website must include either a link to this website or cite the name of this website (RaymondIbrahim.com) as the source of the material or information reproduced. Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.